- Email: [email protected]
A Notion at Risk
Book reviews / Economics of Education Review 22 (2003) 641–654
debate on school choice in the US is expected to continue, clearly more research on the topic is necessary.
References Carnoy, M. (2001). School vouchers: examining the evidence. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. US Department of Education (2001). Outcomes of learning: results from the 2000 program for international student assessment of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics, and science literacy. Washington, D.C: National Center for Education Statistics.
Sunwoong Kim Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00033-X
A Notion at Risk Edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg. New York, NY: A Century Foundation Book. 2000. pp. x+356. Price: $15.95 (paper) More than twenty years ago William Bennet’s scathing criticism of public elementary and secondary schools, A Nation at Risk, galvanized the school reform movement in much the same way as Charles Murray’s, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, had done for welfare reform. Many advocated the complete dismantling of traditional public education through privatization and vouchers, while others focused on accountability and standards. Concerns about resource inadequacy and inequality were largely set aside in favor of a focus on inefficiency and incentives. This book of eight essays by accomplished education researchers raises a number of questions about this critique of the public school system in terms of both the extent to which public schools are failing and the underlying causes of any deficiencies. Many of the problems emphasized in the critique of public education, including poor quality instruction and leadership and disruptive student behavior, are considered in this volume. However, the essays also emphasize the problems resulting from resource inadequacy and inequality, described in detail in the chapter by Richard Rothstein. The final chapter by Ruy Teixeira frames the discussion with information on public perceptions of the state of the schools. Public willingness to spend additional money on central city schools coexists with strong support for high stakes testing and a substantial majority in favor of expanded choice. These opinions
643
taken together reveal a desire to devote additional resources to remedy the low education outcomes for many students, particularly those in schools serving predominantly poor and minority students, as long as schools are held accountable through choice or standards. The preceding chapters focus on different aspects of the education process that contribute to the low outcomes for many students and the benefits and potential pitfalls of specific reforms. Doris Entwistle, Karl Alexander and Linda Olson emphasize the importance of separating the summer from the school year in both analyzing public school quality and formulating policy. While their deemphasis of low quality schooling for disadvantaged children is at odds with much existing evidence and the failure of many summer programs raises doubts about their potential importance, a convincing case is made that non-school time has received far too little attention and financial support. In a discussion of discipline, Paul Barton documents an increase in disruptive behavior over time and far more behavior problems in schools serving disadvantaged students. This has both direct and indirect effects on student achievement, the latter coming through the link between such behavior and teacher turnover. The essay also recommends that good behavior be added as one of the standards over which schools should be judged, though it is not clear why excellent academic achievement would not be an adequate incentive to reduce disruptive behavior given the link between the two. Linda Darling-Hammond and Laura Post emphasize the importance of effective school leadership in their discussion of teacher quality. Inadequate personnel policies and excessive spending on non-instructional personnel are two of the factors emphasized by advocates of choice and accountability in their critique of the public schools, but the policies offered in this essay tend to downplay the role of incentives. Though the authors present a strong case in support of better teacher development, higher salaries, mentoring and greater teacher control over their jobs, they do not delve into the more fundamental issue of why poor leadership and inappropriate personnel policies pervade many schools and districts today despite the many efforts to improve teacher and administrator training and evidence of a very weak link between teacher effectiveness and post-graduate training. High standards and charter schools constitute structural changes designed in part to provide the incentives for improved leadership and instruction. Yet these reforms may generate adverse consequences, particularly for lower income and minority students. Adam Gamoran points out that high stakes testing may harm disadvantaged students, though there is some evidence that test score based standards raise achievement. The key issue is whether schools have the capacity, curriculum and leadership necessary to provide high quality courses for
644
Book reviews / Economics of Education Review 22 (2003) 641–654
disadvantaged students rather than relegating them to a low track with the least effective teachers. In terms of charter schooling, Amy Wells and her coauthors highlight the possibility of increased segregation by race. Evidence suggests that charters tend to provide alternative school possibilities for groups that are in the minority and more likely to be dissatisfied with the public schools, though there is substantial heterogeneity among states and districts. Admissions policies may exacerbate segregation, though evidence is quite limited. Moreover, there is little discussion of charter school effects on the quality of education, presumably the most important outcome. In general, these essays do not provide comprehensive summaries of empirical evidence, nor do they present convincing cases in support of specific programs. Rather they offer provocative and suggestive statistical and case study evidence on a number of issues that should engender additional research and sound a note of caution to those who believe that institutional changes alone, such as the introduction of vouchers or high standards, will fix poorly performing public schools and districts. Steven G. Rivkin Amrherst College, Amrherst, MA 01002-5000, USA E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00057-2
Reallocating Resources: How to Boost Student Achievement Without Asking for More By Allan Odden and Sarah Archibald. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA., 2001. Pages, viii + 106. Price, $21.95 (paper), $47.95 (library ed.) This short work is a manual for school administrators who seek to improve achievement within fixed financial constraints. The book is based on the finding that school principals – at least in some districts—have sufficient freedom to reallocate existing funding to different uses and that the new allocations often produce measurable results. This is a welcome message for it shows that bureaucratic constraints on the on-site managers are not as formidable as often represented; and it raises the hope that schools may be held accountable for producing results even if total resources have not been raised. Odden and Archibald show that a reallocation strategy is now a pressing need: when urban districts in New Jersey alleged in a law suit that state support was inadequate, the state’s Supreme Court held in 1998 that the funding actually was sufficient. Thus, these districts had to face the reality that calls for ever more resources (with the implication that without more money the districts should not be held accountable) will no longer be accepted as
a substitute for better educational performance. Courts (and others) will be expecting such districts to do more with the substantial resources already available for the task at hand. Odden and Archibald make clear that gaining a school faculty’s willingness to reallocate resources, and to buy into the new educational strategy or curriculum to be funded, is crucial. Given this support, administrators often are able to reallocate funds previously earmarked for some types of positions, apply for waivers in the use of federal monies, etc., in order to apply the freed funds to new positions and strategies. Thus, the drive to free resources goes hand-in-hand with a critical examination of the inherited practices of a school, for only in that way can a school decide what positions that support failing practices could be ended. Once the initial steps have been completed, the authors suggest that the process of reallocation is far less formidable than might be feared. Many apparent obstacles (such as providing more classrooms for smaller classes) are overcome more easily than might be expected. In response to the question of how resources should be reallocated, Odden and Archibald have some research-driven suggestions. In many cases the suggestions are hardly surprising: smaller classes, adoption of a coherent and academically focused curriculum, tutoring for slower students, professional development for teachers. To fund these, the authors cite research that shows that “pull-out” programs for needy students and the use of unlicensed teachers’ aides, are relatively ineffective and expensive options that can be reallocated. While this book is clearly a how-to manual for administrators, it has some indirect implications for economic thought about education. To some degree, this book undercuts one popular rationale for public support of charter schools or other private schools; it is regularly claimed that their advantage is their relative freedom from bureaucratic regulations and rigidities compared to their public counterparts. If Odden and Archibald are correct, public schools may well have more freedom for local-level reallocation and initiatives than premised by the advocates of market-oriented approaches to schooling. This book indirectly makes the essential point that every so often economists ought to examine their unexamined assumptions—in this case, that public schools ought to be inflexible simply because they are not market-driven. This book also emphasizes the importance of what the best economic research (but not all economic research) already does: to look closely at what goes on within the production process. It is apparently inadequate simply to measure the quantities of inputs and relate them to outputs. The manner in which the same quantities of inputs are combined to implement different educational strategies is fundamental in the production process. Odden and Archibald have written a very hopeful
debate on school choice in the US is expected to continue, clearly more research on the topic is necessary.
References Carnoy, M. (2001). School vouchers: examining the evidence. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. US Department of Education (2001). Outcomes of learning: results from the 2000 program for international student assessment of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics, and science literacy. Washington, D.C: National Center for Education Statistics.
Sunwoong Kim Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00033-X
A Notion at Risk Edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg. New York, NY: A Century Foundation Book. 2000. pp. x+356. Price: $15.95 (paper) More than twenty years ago William Bennet’s scathing criticism of public elementary and secondary schools, A Nation at Risk, galvanized the school reform movement in much the same way as Charles Murray’s, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, had done for welfare reform. Many advocated the complete dismantling of traditional public education through privatization and vouchers, while others focused on accountability and standards. Concerns about resource inadequacy and inequality were largely set aside in favor of a focus on inefficiency and incentives. This book of eight essays by accomplished education researchers raises a number of questions about this critique of the public school system in terms of both the extent to which public schools are failing and the underlying causes of any deficiencies. Many of the problems emphasized in the critique of public education, including poor quality instruction and leadership and disruptive student behavior, are considered in this volume. However, the essays also emphasize the problems resulting from resource inadequacy and inequality, described in detail in the chapter by Richard Rothstein. The final chapter by Ruy Teixeira frames the discussion with information on public perceptions of the state of the schools. Public willingness to spend additional money on central city schools coexists with strong support for high stakes testing and a substantial majority in favor of expanded choice. These opinions
643
taken together reveal a desire to devote additional resources to remedy the low education outcomes for many students, particularly those in schools serving predominantly poor and minority students, as long as schools are held accountable through choice or standards. The preceding chapters focus on different aspects of the education process that contribute to the low outcomes for many students and the benefits and potential pitfalls of specific reforms. Doris Entwistle, Karl Alexander and Linda Olson emphasize the importance of separating the summer from the school year in both analyzing public school quality and formulating policy. While their deemphasis of low quality schooling for disadvantaged children is at odds with much existing evidence and the failure of many summer programs raises doubts about their potential importance, a convincing case is made that non-school time has received far too little attention and financial support. In a discussion of discipline, Paul Barton documents an increase in disruptive behavior over time and far more behavior problems in schools serving disadvantaged students. This has both direct and indirect effects on student achievement, the latter coming through the link between such behavior and teacher turnover. The essay also recommends that good behavior be added as one of the standards over which schools should be judged, though it is not clear why excellent academic achievement would not be an adequate incentive to reduce disruptive behavior given the link between the two. Linda Darling-Hammond and Laura Post emphasize the importance of effective school leadership in their discussion of teacher quality. Inadequate personnel policies and excessive spending on non-instructional personnel are two of the factors emphasized by advocates of choice and accountability in their critique of the public schools, but the policies offered in this essay tend to downplay the role of incentives. Though the authors present a strong case in support of better teacher development, higher salaries, mentoring and greater teacher control over their jobs, they do not delve into the more fundamental issue of why poor leadership and inappropriate personnel policies pervade many schools and districts today despite the many efforts to improve teacher and administrator training and evidence of a very weak link between teacher effectiveness and post-graduate training. High standards and charter schools constitute structural changes designed in part to provide the incentives for improved leadership and instruction. Yet these reforms may generate adverse consequences, particularly for lower income and minority students. Adam Gamoran points out that high stakes testing may harm disadvantaged students, though there is some evidence that test score based standards raise achievement. The key issue is whether schools have the capacity, curriculum and leadership necessary to provide high quality courses for
644
Book reviews / Economics of Education Review 22 (2003) 641–654
disadvantaged students rather than relegating them to a low track with the least effective teachers. In terms of charter schooling, Amy Wells and her coauthors highlight the possibility of increased segregation by race. Evidence suggests that charters tend to provide alternative school possibilities for groups that are in the minority and more likely to be dissatisfied with the public schools, though there is substantial heterogeneity among states and districts. Admissions policies may exacerbate segregation, though evidence is quite limited. Moreover, there is little discussion of charter school effects on the quality of education, presumably the most important outcome. In general, these essays do not provide comprehensive summaries of empirical evidence, nor do they present convincing cases in support of specific programs. Rather they offer provocative and suggestive statistical and case study evidence on a number of issues that should engender additional research and sound a note of caution to those who believe that institutional changes alone, such as the introduction of vouchers or high standards, will fix poorly performing public schools and districts. Steven G. Rivkin Amrherst College, Amrherst, MA 01002-5000, USA E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00057-2
Reallocating Resources: How to Boost Student Achievement Without Asking for More By Allan Odden and Sarah Archibald. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA., 2001. Pages, viii + 106. Price, $21.95 (paper), $47.95 (library ed.) This short work is a manual for school administrators who seek to improve achievement within fixed financial constraints. The book is based on the finding that school principals – at least in some districts—have sufficient freedom to reallocate existing funding to different uses and that the new allocations often produce measurable results. This is a welcome message for it shows that bureaucratic constraints on the on-site managers are not as formidable as often represented; and it raises the hope that schools may be held accountable for producing results even if total resources have not been raised. Odden and Archibald show that a reallocation strategy is now a pressing need: when urban districts in New Jersey alleged in a law suit that state support was inadequate, the state’s Supreme Court held in 1998 that the funding actually was sufficient. Thus, these districts had to face the reality that calls for ever more resources (with the implication that without more money the districts should not be held accountable) will no longer be accepted as
a substitute for better educational performance. Courts (and others) will be expecting such districts to do more with the substantial resources already available for the task at hand. Odden and Archibald make clear that gaining a school faculty’s willingness to reallocate resources, and to buy into the new educational strategy or curriculum to be funded, is crucial. Given this support, administrators often are able to reallocate funds previously earmarked for some types of positions, apply for waivers in the use of federal monies, etc., in order to apply the freed funds to new positions and strategies. Thus, the drive to free resources goes hand-in-hand with a critical examination of the inherited practices of a school, for only in that way can a school decide what positions that support failing practices could be ended. Once the initial steps have been completed, the authors suggest that the process of reallocation is far less formidable than might be feared. Many apparent obstacles (such as providing more classrooms for smaller classes) are overcome more easily than might be expected. In response to the question of how resources should be reallocated, Odden and Archibald have some research-driven suggestions. In many cases the suggestions are hardly surprising: smaller classes, adoption of a coherent and academically focused curriculum, tutoring for slower students, professional development for teachers. To fund these, the authors cite research that shows that “pull-out” programs for needy students and the use of unlicensed teachers’ aides, are relatively ineffective and expensive options that can be reallocated. While this book is clearly a how-to manual for administrators, it has some indirect implications for economic thought about education. To some degree, this book undercuts one popular rationale for public support of charter schools or other private schools; it is regularly claimed that their advantage is their relative freedom from bureaucratic regulations and rigidities compared to their public counterparts. If Odden and Archibald are correct, public schools may well have more freedom for local-level reallocation and initiatives than premised by the advocates of market-oriented approaches to schooling. This book indirectly makes the essential point that every so often economists ought to examine their unexamined assumptions—in this case, that public schools ought to be inflexible simply because they are not market-driven. This book also emphasizes the importance of what the best economic research (but not all economic research) already does: to look closely at what goes on within the production process. It is apparently inadequate simply to measure the quantities of inputs and relate them to outputs. The manner in which the same quantities of inputs are combined to implement different educational strategies is fundamental in the production process. Odden and Archibald have written a very hopeful